VS 2003 Upgrade

[Liz]

I'm going to be installing VS 2003 over my existing VS; are there any
factors/considerations/precautions I should be aware of before doing so ?
will the older VS be removed automatically or is it an option ?

Thanks ...

btw, I'm also going to install Office 2003; anyone know if my Outlook email
accounts and other preferences/settings/etc will be preserved ? I can't
seem to find an answer to this anywhere even though it seems an easy
question ...

[Sven Groot]

Liz wrote:

I'm going to be installing VS 2003 over my existing VS; are there any
factors/considerations/precautions I should be aware of before doing
so ? will the older VS be removed automatically or is it an option ?
You can't upgrade to VS.NET 2003 in that sence. VS.NET 2003 will be
installed side-by-side with your existing version. You can continue to use
the existing version, or uninstall it at your leisure. If the existing
version is VS.NET 2002, VS.NET 2003 will ask you if you want to migrate
settings at first start-up. It can't migrate settings from VS6.
If you're not going to continue running the old version, I recommend
uninstalling it before installing VS.NET 2003. That way you can be certain
uninstalling the old version doesn't mess up file associations.
btw, I'm also going to install Office 2003; anyone know if my Outlook
email accounts and other preferences/settings/etc will be preserved ?
I can't seem to find an answer to this anywhere even though it seems
an easy question ...

All Office applications, with the exception of Outlook, can run side-by-side
with their older versions. Only in the case of Outlook it can only be
installed if the old version is removed. The Office 2003 installer will take
care of removing the older Outlook version, and migrating the settings, so
all should be safe.

--
Sven Groot

http://unforgiven.bloghorn.com

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

* "Liz" <li*@tiredofspa m.com> scripsit:

I'm going to be installing VS 2003 over my existing VS; are there any
factors/considerations/precautions I should be aware of before doing so ?
will the older VS be removed automatically or is it an option ?
VS 2002 and VS 2003 can run on the same machine without problems.
btw, I'm also going to install Office 2003; anyone know if my Outlook email
accounts and other preferences/settings/etc will be preserved ?

I assume that they will be preserved, but no guarantee.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>

[Liz]

"Sven Groot" <sv*******@gmx. net> wrote in message
news:OS******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...

You can't upgrade to VS.NET 2003 in that sence. VS.NET 2003 will be
installed side-by-side with your existing version. You can continue to use
the existing version, or uninstall it at your leisure. If the existing
version is VS.NET 2002, VS.NET 2003 will ask you if you want to migrate
settings at first start-up. It can't migrate settings from VS6.
If you're not going to continue running the old version, I recommend
uninstalling it before installing VS.NET 2003. That way you can be certain
uninstalling the old version doesn't mess up file associations.
it's 7.0.9466 that's on there now ... My preference is to upgrade, retain
settings and get rid of 2002; it sounds like I should install '03 and then
uninstall '02, no ?
from Herfried K. Wagner:

VS 2002 and VS 2003 can run on the same machine without problems.

is there any compelling reason to run both ?

thanks, guys ....

[Sven Groot]

Liz wrote:

VS 2002 and VS 2003 can run on the same machine without problems.

is there any compelling reason to run both ?

Only if you're not willing to convert all your projects (maybe because other
members of the development team are using 2002), or have a pressing need to
develop applications for the .Net Framework 1.0 (2003 can only develop 1.1).
I myself ran 2002 and 2003 side-by-side for a while when I still had a few
web applications running at a host that at the time hadn't updated to
ASP.NET 1.1 yet. After they updated, I've used 2003 exclusively to great
satisfaction.

--
Sven Groot

http://unforgiven.bloghorn.com

[Liz]

"Sven Groot" <sv*******@gmx. net> wrote in message
news:#f******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...

Liz wrote:

VS 2002 and VS 2003 can run on the same machine without problems.
is there any compelling reason to run both ?

Only if you're not willing to convert all your projects (maybe because

other members of the development team are using 2002), or have a pressing need to develop applications for the .Net Framework 1.0 (2003 can only develop 1.1). I myself ran 2002 and 2003 side-by-side for a while when I still had a few
web applications running at a host that at the time hadn't updated to
ASP.NET 1.1 yet. After they updated, I've used 2003 exclusively to great
satisfaction.

How much conversion is there likely to be ? I guess I was working on the
assumption that 2003 was pretty much a superset of 2002; not so ? Your
point about hosts not running 1.1 is well-taken ....

thanks ...

[Tom Shelton]

In article <#J************ **@TK2MSFTNGP10 .phx.gbl>, Liz wrote:

"Sven Groot" <sv*******@gmx. net> wrote in message
news:#f******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...

Liz wrote:

>> VS 2002 and VS 2003 can run on the same machine without problems.
>
> is there any compelling reason to run both ?

Only if you're not willing to convert all your projects (maybe because

other

members of the development team are using 2002), or have a pressing need

to

develop applications for the .Net Framework 1.0 (2003 can only develop

1.1).

I myself ran 2002 and 2003 side-by-side for a while when I still had a few
web applications running at a host that at the time hadn't updated to
ASP.NET 1.1 yet. After they updated, I've used 2003 exclusively to great
satisfaction.

How much conversion is there likely to be ? I guess I was working on the
assumption that 2003 was pretty much a superset of 2002; not so ? Your
point about hosts not running 1.1 is well-taken ....

thanks ...

Code wise - probably none (there were a few breaking changes going from
1.0 to 1.1). It's just that 2003 "upgrades" the project
files which means you can't open your projects in 2002 once you've
upgraded them to 2003.

You can still target the 1.0 runtime from 2003 - it's just not using it
like you would expect :) When you tell set the project option to
support the 1.0 runtime, the project is still compiled using 1.1. All
it does is make an app.config setting that tells the compiled
application to allow it's self to run on the 1.0 runtime. What that
means is that you have to be a little bit careful about what
classes/methods you use if you decide to use 2003 to compile apps that
need to target the 1.0 runtime. Things change somewhat between
versions, new classes, etc. If you use a 1.1 specific class, then it is
going to blow up when you attempt to run it on the 1.0 runtime.

--
Tom Shelton [MVP]

[Sven Groot]

Liz wrote:

"Sven Groot" <sv*******@gmx. net> wrote in message
news:#f******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...

Liz wrote:

VS 2002 and VS 2003 can run on the same machine without problems.

is there any compelling reason to run both ?

Only if you're not willing to convert all your projects (maybe
because other members of the development team are using 2002), or
have a pressing need to develop applications for the .Net Framework
1.0 (2003 can only develop 1.1). I myself ran 2002 and 2003
side-by-side for a while when I still had a few web applications
running at a host that at the time hadn't updated to ASP.NET 1.1
yet. After they updated, I've used 2003 exclusively to great
satisfaction.

How much conversion is there likely to be ? I guess I was working on
the assumption that 2003 was pretty much a superset of 2002; not so
?

With conversion I mainly meant project format. VS.NET 2002 can't open
projects from 2003, which is a problem if you're working in a team and
you're the only one that's using 2003.

There are also some breaking changes in the Framework, which are listed
here:
http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/changeinfo/default.aspx
This can also be a reason why you don't want to move an application forward
to 1.1 yet.

--
Sven Groot

http://unforgiven.bloghorn.com

[Liz]

"Tom Shelton" <to*@mtogden.co m> wrote in message
news:ev******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...

Code wise - probably none (there were a few breaking changes going from
1.0 to 1.1). It's just that 2003 "upgrades" the project
files which means you can't open your projects in 2002 once you've
upgraded them to 2003.

You can still target the 1.0 runtime from 2003 - it's just not using it
like you would expect :) When you tell set the project option to
support the 1.0 runtime, the project is still compiled using 1.1. All
it does is make an app.config setting that tells the compiled
application to allow it's self to run on the 1.0 runtime. What that
means is that you have to be a little bit careful about what
classes/methods you use if you decide to use 2003 to compile apps that
need to target the 1.0 runtime. Things change somewhat between
versions, new classes, etc. If you use a 1.1 specific class, then it is
going to blow up when you attempt to run it on the 1.0 runtime.

think I got the drift ... Thanks Tom, Sven, Herfried ....